Search This Blog

Was Worldcat Designed By People Who Actually Use Libraries?

Update: Attention has been paid! Please see the comments for a nice response from a WorldCat representative. We now have an answer to the title question: Yes.

My beloved university library has now switched over from an in-house computerized catalogue to using WorldCat. There are definite advantages to this, and some neat things WorldCat can do.

But for all its many useful features, I wonder: Does anybody at WorldCat actually use libraries?

Let's say you are the sort of person who takes out more than one book at a time from a library. Perhaps you're doing a research project. You might want to find, for instance, books where the author is named Matthew Cheney (you must be really desperate for something to read). We'll put aside for the moment the fact that the author search brings up an anthology that includes work by somebody named George Cheney and other work by somebody named Matthew W. Seeger (and thus the author search is only marginally more useful than a keyword search; it is, though, better than a search with "Matthew Cheney" in quotation marks, since that search doesn't even bring up a book for which Mr. Cheney is listed in the author field — which, in the old catalogue, was the only book that came up on that author search [and, arguably, is the only one that should, because it's the only book our library has for which my name is in the author field]). We'll ignore all that because lots of things play into the inaccuracies of searches, and there's a fine art to search improvement. WorldCat can certainly get better at it, but it's not awful.

What's awful becomes apparent when you think about yourself as a person doing research in actual books that are in the library. Let's say the author search on Matthew Cheney works just fine for you. You see what you need — for instance, Logorrhea and Handbook of Public Relations (because you realize that public relations and logorrhea are exactly what you want to write a paper on). You don't need to search anymore, you've found what you need. Now you just need to go find the books and see if they're actually useful to you.

But how will you find the books? The search screen lists titles, authors, publishers, media, etc. ... but not the call number.

How do we know that WorldCat was designed by people who don't get books out of libraries? Because call numbers are vital information that is relegated only to each specific book's page (and in a fairly small font). So to find a book, you have to go to its page.

That may not seem like a big deal if you've never used a library. If you have, though, it's probably pretty obvious to you how annoying it is.

Okay, I know it's not that big a problem to go into every book's page and then write down the call number for yourself. It's a waste of time and it's annoying, but you're going to be looking at individual book pages with some frequency, anyway, because a lot of the time a basic search results screen doesn't have enough information with which to evaluate the usefulness of the book. (Often it does, though. Recently, I did a keyword search for "pentagon hollywood", looking for books about the relationship between Hollywood and the U.S. military. The first item on the list was obviously the book I wanted, and nothing else that came up was immediately useful.)

But limiting the display of call numbers only to the book's individual page is a huge waste of potential for WorldCat. Consider the ability to create lists, a potentially useful function that is currently pretty useless (at least to me, somebody who gets books out of the library). It's got all sorts of social media functions, ability to share, export, etc. — but nowhere are call numbers visible in the list!

So let's say you don't necessarily want to make a list of books to share with your socially mediated friends, you don't want to make a list into a bibliography, you just want to make a list of books to get at the library. (A bizarre thing to do, I know!) You can make the list, but you won't be able to easily find the books in the physical library.

Am I really the only person who searches for books from home and then needs a simple list of titles and call numbers to find the books in the library?

Imagine what a wonder the list function would be if it included call numbers! Or even if you could sort the list by call numbers so that then you knew which of the books you were looking for were near each other! I know it's an esoteric request and most people are probably not like me — I usually go to the library with a handwritten list of 10-20 books to take a look at — so knowing whether a book is on the first floor or third floor may not be all that important ... but still. WorldCat can show the holdings of 7200 libraries, but it can't figure out that call numbers are essential information?

Though I've written this primarily to vent an annoyance in public, and I've submitted feedback to WorldCat, there's a larger point. WorldCat is now a perfect example of a tool that gives us access to all sorts of information and services ... but in doing so has lost sight of what information is most important and useful. It's software created by people who clearly know a lot about programming, but who don't seem to have done enough reflection on how patrons actually use libraries. One of the things good librarians know is that in this world of information overload, the presentation and filtering of information is as important as access to it.

Hi Matthew from a fellow Granite stater closer to the seacoast. Thanks for your comments to help make WorldCat.org and WorldCat Local (your library's specific "view" of WorldCat that incorporates additional electronic and digital content, journals, etc that Plymouth State subscribes to) even better for the library-using population.

We've done extensive user testing and will continue to refine the user experience moving forward to make sure you (and other people like you) are getting the MOST useful information in as few screens and clicks as possible. The placement of call numbers is very important for exactly the use cases you describe, and your example is helpful. Thank you, too, for taking the time to submit feedback through the feedback tool and again here in a public forum. This way we can continue to improve and refine the experience for everyone. Please keep sending your feedback!

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Kelly Link isn't the best short story writer in the U.S., then she's the equal of whoever is. I first came to this conclusion a couple of years ago when I read her story "Lull" in Conjunctions: 39, and I am absolutely certain of it now that I have read "Stone Animals" in Conjunctions: 43. (Of course, I've also read her collection Stranger Things Happen, but, much as I admire it, nothing in that book is as breathtaking as the stories she has written since it appeared, particularly the two Conjunctions stories.)

"Stone Animals" both employs and parodies the basic elements of suburban psychological realism, the sort of scaffolding John Cheever and so many other writers hung their words and laundry on: a family buying a house and moving into it, a father commuting to a desultory job in the city, a pregnant wife who is uncertain about her marriage, suspicions and allegations of adultery, existentially anxious children, a controlling boss, str…

I've intended to write about Nadine Gordimer's very short story "Loot" for years, ever since I first read it in The New Yorker, and for some reason I actually thought I had written a post here about it. I recommended the story to a friend a few days ago and intended to include a link to my post about the story when, after a bit of searching, I realized I'd never written the post. Now I will fix that mistake.

From the first sentence, "Loot" is a story about time and history, about legends and imagination. "Once upon our time," it tells us, there was a Great Event -- the greatest earthquake every recorded, the greatest of all measured "apocalyptic warnings". Not only is it a Great Event (indeed, the Greatest of such events), but it is ours: we possess it.

The second paragraph details the effects of this greatest event of ours. Most giant earthquakes at sea produce floods and tsunamis, but not ours -- our special earthquake does ex…

The first rejection letter I ever got was from Gardner Dozois. I was in 6th grade and had just learned about submitting stories to magazines; I had also just started reading my mother's boss's copies of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, which Dozois had recently become editor of. I don't remember anything about the story I submitted, but I'm sure it was awful. I don't think I expected it to be accepted, because what I most remember is how excited I was to get a letter from the editor. My parents were kind and didn't tell me it was a form letter, nor that the signature was printed onto it, not written by the editor himself. I brought it to school to show my teacher. She, too, very kindly did not tell me that thousands of people likely got just this same letter. (After a few more submissions, I figured it out.)

Dozois also edited what may be the single most important anthology in my life: The Year's Best Science Fiction, Third Annual Collection, w…

I prefer, where truth is important, to write
fiction.
—Virginia Woolf, The PargitersPreface
It seems my doctoral dissertation has hit the ProQuest dissertations databases, so now is perhaps a useful time to say a few words about it here. First, the details for finding it, since there doesn't seem to be an openly accessible link: The title is Lessoning Fiction: Modernist Crisis and the Pedagogy of Form, and it is Dissertation/thesis number 10786319 and ProQuest document ID 2056936547. (If you don't have access to any of those databases and would like a copy of the manuscript, feel free to email me and I will send you a PDF.)

Here's the abstract:
Writers committed to Modernist ideas of artistic autonomy may find that commitment challenged during times of socio-political crisis. This dissertation explores three writers who developed a similar literary strategy at such times: they pushed fictionality toward and beyond its limits, but ultimately preserved that fictionality, re…

In writing about Brian Evenson's book about Raymond Carver, I noted that both Evenson and I first read Carver right around the time we first read Kafka and Beckett, and we did so without knowledge of the contemporary American fiction writers he's often set alongside (e.g. Ann Beattie, Tobias Wolff, etc.). Later, I gained that context and, consequently, the context I'd originally brought faded, which is one reason why Brian's book so effectively brought Carver back to me — which is to say, it brought a way of reading Carver back to me. I don't mind the American writers Carver typically gets grouped with, but I'd be lying if I said their work really excites me. Kafka and Beckett, on the other hand, are among a very small group of 20th century writers whose work I am in awe of, work that I feel utterly incapable of writing about analytically, work that I can only point to and say, "That. Whatever great literature is, it must surely be that."